DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Whittaker v. Stangvick, 111 N.W. 295.

34 citing documents.

  • Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
  • Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
    Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 220 Minn. 296, 311-12 , -35 (1945) (water); Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 391 , 111 N.W.
  • Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc. 662 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc. 662 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    See Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , 111 N.W.
  • State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Appellant relies primarily on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , 111 N.W.
  • Victor v. Sell 222 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1974
  • Victor v. Sell 222 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1974
    Although they may not contain the specific statement that a trespass may be committed by throwing or placing an1 object upon the property of another — see, e. g., Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , Muenkel v. Muenkel, 143 Minn. 29 , — they do convey the idea that the intentional throwing of the radiator upon plaintiff’s property would constitute a trespass.
  • Despatch Oven Co. v. Rauenhorst 40 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1949
  • Despatch Oven Co. v. Rauenhorst 40 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1949
    See, Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , , 117 A. S. R. 703, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Lamberton v. Lamberton 38 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1949
  • Lamberton v. Lamberton 38 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1949
    Benz & Sons v. Hassie, 208 Minn. 118 , ; Whittaker v. Stang-vick, 100 Minn. 386 , , 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Loth v. Loth 35 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1949
  • Loth v. Loth 35 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1949
    Benz & Sons v. Hassie, 208 Minn. 118 , ; Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , , 117 A. S. R. 703, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co. 19 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1945
  • Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co. 19 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1945
    *312 In situations such as this, we may well apply the rule recognized and applied in Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 388, 389 , , 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Petraborg v. Zontelli 15 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1944
  • Petraborg v. Zontelli 15 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1944
    which involved damage resulting from a drainage project: *555 “* * * The relaxation of the rule requiring a prima facie case of irreparable damage as a condition of granting an injunction in such a case as this, and a modification of the enforced standard of such damage obvious in such decisions generally, has been expressly recognized by this court.” In Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 392 , , 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Romans v. Nadler 14 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1944
  • Romans v. Nadler 14 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1944
    True, an owner may sue for any trivial trespass, Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , , 117 A. S. R. 703, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Martin v. Smith 7 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1942
  • Martin v. Smith 7 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1942
    The invasion of plaintiff’s premises must be “unpermitted.” Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , , 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Sime v. Jensen 7 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 1942
  • Sime v. Jensen 7 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 1942
    Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , , 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Golden v. Lerch Bros. Inc. 281 N.W. 249 Minn. 1938
  • Golden v. Lerch Bros. Inc. 281 N.W. 249 Minn. 1938
    In Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 388 , , 10 L.R.A.
  • Benson v. Northland Transportation Co. 274 N.W. 532 Minn. 1937
  • Benson v. Northland Transportation Co. 274 N.W. 532 Minn. 1937
    See Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 389 , , 10 L.R.A.
  • Hentges v. Hoye 197 N.W. 852 Minn. 1924
  • Hentges v. Hoye 197 N.W. 852 Minn. 1924
    In Hayden v. Lamberton, supra [ 100 Minn. 386 ], it was said that the natural and reasonable effect of the statute is to make it unlawful for a childless spouse to dispose of all his personal property by will to the entire exclusion of the surviving spouse, and, in Hawkinson v. Oleson, supra [ 140 Minn. 298 , syllabus], that “A testamentary disposition of the hom
  • Currie v. Silvernale 171 N.W. 782 Minn. 1919
  • Currie v. Silvernale 171 N.W. 782 Minn. 1919
    Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 , , 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Bilsborrow v. Pierce 112 N.W. 274 Minn. 1907
  • Bilsborrow v. Pierce 112 N.W. 274 Minn. 1907
    Whittaker v. Stangvick 100 Minn. 386 , ; Fuller v. Schutz, 88 Minn. 372 , ; Stees v. Kranz, 32 Minn. 313 , .